There are some large granularity issues people need to consider before getting into the weeds.

There’s the issue of whether it should all be private insurers or all government run (single-payer) or a mix (the ‘public option’ added to private insurers).

There is the question of a mandate. Should everyone be required to have insurance or should it be entirely optional.

There is the question of funding. Should everyone pay 100% of their own insurance costs or should some people receive a subsidy or should all care be funded by everyone’s tax dollars?

I would suggest that on the side of caution we should also consider (not just the benefits or what sounds great), but what negative consequences could (or would) occur as a result of that choice. What happens with a single-payer government take-over of the entire health care insurance system? What happens if a mandate requires *everyone* to buy insurance? Etc.

Perhaps related to that is the idea of transitioning from where we are to something more ideal via one or several steps. In this issue a lot depends upon what you would consider ideal.

I tend to prefer incremental change to avoid unexpected consequences. ymmv

During this fight with Harry & Louise’s employers it’s clear the insurers want everyone covered (a mandate) with them free to charge whatever they want, so they can make much more profit. The Republicans want to prevent too much change or any change which doesn’t somehow redound to their benefit.

What they might also consider is that if they can avoid Obama’s first option, then they might get a serious public call for single-payer — which suits many people. I think it would be a disaster for us to make one big jump to that. What happens to all the people working in the health care industry? What of all that industry’s assets? Talk about major change.

What I’d like everyone to consider is another kind of answer to the question of ‘who pays?’. Instead of the single-payer being the taxpayers (through a government run single-payer plan) or the compromise system where insurers keep current customers and perhaps get some more with taxpayer subsidies there is the other extreme of forcing the insurance and health care industry to absorb all of the uninsured while not being allowed to take in any more money — they become the single payer for all those newly insured customers!

They (the whole industry of health care plus insurance) already charge us twice what most countries pay. It’s leading us to a major disaster. It’s unsustainable. And, we don’t particularly like those folks for putting us through all this. So, why not let them pay if they can’t find a way to compromise on anything?

Single Payer ==> insurers

In the political world you don’t get anything for free. If you’re belligerent and can’t compromise then the public can turn against you and force you to pay a political price. So, as usual, be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

the umm.edu link katy gave said that it can even been genetic.

looking forward to reading what you have to say.